上周傳出這樣一條新聞：特斯拉Model S車(chē)主自動(dòng)駕駛時(shí)遭遇車(chē)禍去世，美國(guó)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)正調(diào)查事故原因。這是自動(dòng)駕駛技術(shù)首次出現(xiàn)車(chē)禍致死，不僅要惋惜生命的逝去，也要正視自動(dòng)駕駛汽車(chē)發(fā)展中面臨的一系列挑戰(zhàn)、道德難題和難以回答的疑問(wèn)。過(guò)去僅在理論上的討論突然之間變成現(xiàn)實(shí)。

然而，沒(méi)人覺(jué)得這次事故會(huì)放緩汽車(chē)的自動(dòng)化進(jìn)程。特斯拉公司的股票略有下挫，但分析師稱之不過(guò)是“頭條新聞風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”。

News emerged this week that U.S. regulators were investigating the death of a driver using the Autopilot feature of a Tesla Model S. This was the first death of its kind, and while it’s first and foremost a tragic loss of life, it also points to an array of challenges, ethical conundrums, and unanswered questions about the quest for self-driving cars. What had been theoretical debates are suddenly starkly real.

By and large, there seems little expectation that the event in and of itself will slow progress towards vehicle automation. Tesla’s own stock suffered modest losses on the news, and analysts described the event as a mere “headline risk.”

原因之一是，雖然調(diào)查還在進(jìn)行，但看起來(lái)特斯拉的自動(dòng)駕駛系統(tǒng)Autopilot并不是事故的元兇。而且有猜測(cè)認(rèn)為，遇難的特斯拉車(chē)駕駛者生前有可能注意力分散，也許還有超速情況。更重要的是，事故發(fā)生時(shí)向特斯拉迎面駛來(lái)的拖掛卡車(chē)司機(jī)采取了危險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)彎。Autopilot顯然并非完美，但事后看來(lái)，原因就是兩位駕駛員陷入了危險(xiǎn)境地，自動(dòng)駕駛系統(tǒng)也無(wú)能為力，駕駛系統(tǒng)并未犯致命錯(cuò)誤。

從廣義的角度看，這起事故是不可避免的：誰(shuí)也沒(méi)法保證自動(dòng)駕駛系統(tǒng)能避免車(chē)禍，這樣一起事故發(fā)生時(shí)，特斯拉作為業(yè)內(nèi)技術(shù)最先進(jìn)的公司，多少也承擔(dān)了成為關(guān)注焦點(diǎn)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。特斯拉已經(jīng)回應(yīng)，指出這是Autopilot系統(tǒng)行駛1.3億英里首次撞車(chē)，而美國(guó)司機(jī)平均每1億英里行程就會(huì)出一起致命車(chē)禍。特斯拉的樣本規(guī)模還不夠大，跟人類駕駛對(duì)比證據(jù)稍顯不足，但至少目前看來(lái)Autopilot有可能讓汽車(chē)更安全。

盡管如此，這起致命事故還是導(dǎo)致了一些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。首先，自動(dòng)駕駛面臨監(jiān)管可能更嚴(yán)格，目前監(jiān)管施加的壓力并不大。嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管可能拖累技術(shù)研發(fā)的進(jìn)度。這起事故的法律影響還不確定——如果有人說(shuō)服法官或者陪審團(tuán)相信特斯拉應(yīng)為撞車(chē)負(fù)責(zé)，Autopilot和自動(dòng)駕駛可能會(huì)遭受重挫。

關(guān)于監(jiān)管和追究事故責(zé)任的追問(wèn)不斷可能讓特斯拉焦頭爛額。雖然特斯拉反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)，Autopilot是一款“測(cè)試版”產(chǎn)品，即使自動(dòng)駕駛狀態(tài)開(kāi)啟，系統(tǒng)內(nèi)設(shè)的語(yǔ)音也會(huì)提示駕駛者把雙手放在方向盤(pán)上。在科技行業(yè)，產(chǎn)品尚未完善就推出很正常?？蛇@起事故提醒我們，汽車(chē)行業(yè)人命關(guān)天，產(chǎn)品不能有瑕疵。盡管“測(cè)試”項(xiàng)目對(duì)幫助特斯拉改進(jìn)Autopilot至關(guān)重要——但法官和議員可能得仔細(xì)衡量，讓駕駛員冒著生命危險(xiǎn)使用監(jiān)管松弛又不完善的產(chǎn)品值不值得。

That’s in part because, while an investigation is still underway, it so far does not seem that the Tesla Autopilot feature was the root cause of the accident. There is speculation that the Tesla driver may have been distracted, and perhaps speeding. More important still, most accounts of the incident have the semi-truck’s driver making a very dangerous turn across oncoming traffic. Autopilot clearly isn’t perfect, but the emerging picture is one in which two human drivers created a situation that an automated system failed to save them from, rather than one in which an automated system made a fatal mistake on its own.

More broadly, this incident has an air of inevitability: No one claims that automated systems will prevent all crashes, and as the company with the most advanced commercially available automation tech, Tesla more or less knowingly shouldered the risk of being in the spotlight when a crash like this occurred. Tesla has responded to the event in part by pointing out that this is the first crash after 130 million miles of Autopilot use, while U.S. drivers overall average about one death per 100 millionvehicle miles traveled. Though Tesla’s sample size is not big enough to make the case on that comparison alone, it’s at least an early indicator that Autopilot does make the cars safer.

Nonetheless, the incident generates some risks. For one, it could lead to political pressure to tighten regulation of automation features, which is currently relatively limited. Tighter regulation could slow development of the technology. The legal fallout from the incident is also still uncertain—if someone can convince a judge or jury that Tesla is liable for the crash, the picture for Autopilot and automation could shift rapidly.

Questions of both regulation and liability could hinge on Tesla’s repeated insistence that Autopilot is a ‘beta’ product, and its many built-in warnings that drivers should keep their hands on the wheel even when it is active. While releasing a product that’s less than perfect is common practice in the tech world, where Elon Musk’s roots lie, this crash reminds us that things are different when it comes to cars. The ‘beta’ program has been crucial to helping Tesla improve Autopilot – but judges and lawmakers may ultimately have to decide whether that’s worth the tradeoff of risking driver lives on a lightly regulated and explicitly imperfect product.

由此還引申了另一個(gè)問(wèn)題，即“半自動(dòng)化”是否導(dǎo)致一種新型風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。正如美國(guó)自動(dòng)駕駛研究公司Kelley Blue Book一位分析師向《底特律新聞》指出，“濫用輔助駕駛技術(shù)的記錄”在Youtube等網(wǎng)站上比比皆是——一些視頻里駕駛員雙手離開(kāi)方向盤(pán)，甚至邊看報(bào)邊開(kāi)車(chē)?；蛟S真應(yīng)該問(wèn)問(wèn)：特斯拉是否應(yīng)該采取更激進(jìn)的方式管控濫用自動(dòng)駕駛系統(tǒng)問(wèn)題，也許推廣或者描述功能時(shí)可以更保守些。有可能很快就能看到變化。

在這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論中，最極端的觀點(diǎn)來(lái)自美國(guó)知名科技博客Gizmodo的編輯阿麗莎·沃爾克。她認(rèn)為，這次致命撞車(chē)證明，“全自動(dòng)汽車(chē)才最適合現(xiàn)實(shí)路況的?！边@種觀點(diǎn)有問(wèn)題，因?yàn)樽詣?dòng)剎車(chē)等各類半自動(dòng)化系統(tǒng)早已投入應(yīng)用，挽救了不少生命。雖然時(shí)而有些進(jìn)展公開(kāi)，但全自動(dòng)汽車(chē)會(huì)否很快面市很難說(shuō)。那一天真正到來(lái)以前，如果不允許汽車(chē)應(yīng)用線道偵測(cè)和其他安全技術(shù)，可能會(huì)阻礙全自動(dòng)汽車(chē)必需的諸多功能開(kāi)發(fā)進(jìn)程。

至少近期內(nèi)，特斯拉這起致命車(chē)禍的教訓(xùn)是：汽車(chē)是強(qiáng)大卻危險(xiǎn)的機(jī)器?；蛟S有一天，全自動(dòng)化會(huì)讓車(chē)輛真正安全，每年全球造成逾百萬(wàn)起死亡的交通事故將大為減少，甚至不復(fù)存在。

可惜的是，那一天還沒(méi)到來(lái)。??（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

Related to this is the question of whether ‘partial automation’ creates a unique sort of risk. As a Kelley Blue Book analyst put it to the Detroit News, “documented abuses of driver-assist technology” have been plastered all over sites like YouTube —videos of drivers operating their Tesla with no hands, or even while reading the newspaper. It’s fair to ask whether Tesla should have been more aggressive about policing these misuses of the system, perhaps by marketing or characterizing the technology itself more conservatively. Those changes could be coming soon.

At the most extreme end of that debate, Gizmodo’s Alissa Walker argues that the crash proves that “fully autonomous vehicles are the only types of self-driving cars that make sense in our streets.” That’s a problematic argument, because various kinds of partial automation, such as automatic braking, arealready on the road and saving lives. Despite some bold public statements, there’s also little certainty that full vehicle automation is coming anytime soon, and keeping lane detection and other safety features out of cars until it’s here would possibly hinder the development of the myriad features necessary to add up to a fully autonomous car.

At least in the near term, what it all boils down to is this: Automobiles are powerful, dangerous machines. Maybe full automation will someday make them truly safe, preventing most, or even all, of the million-plus traffic deaths that occur worldwide each year.

But we’re not there yet.